RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps

["Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and Amr,
Thank  you for your feedback and suggestions.  This will be incorporated into 
the final version.

At the last meeting, we discussed the value of the GNSO Review Working Party to 
suggest  targets, indications or other guidance to specify what a good outcome 
would be for each recommendation identified for implementation.  Amr, as you 
suggested, this would help with measuring effectiveness of the implementation 
in the future.  There seemed to be general agreement that this would be a 
useful activity.  This approach would be consistent with good practices and 
process improvements we are working on implementing for all reviews.  Would you 
be willing to assist with this effort, and if so, would you be able to carve 
out some time in Marrakech to share your ideas with Charla and me?

Thank you,
Larisa  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:05 PM
To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Charla Shambley 
<charla.shambley@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps


Amr's suggestion of adding a note (or notes) seems like a good idea to me.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:19 PM
To: Charla Shambley
Cc: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps


Hi,

Apologies for missing the last call. It somehow didn’t make it in to my 
calendar. I just listened to the recording, checked the changes in 
recommendations suggested and wanted to offer one comment regarding 
recommendations 35 and 36.

If I recall correctly, both those recommendations had a “do not implement” 
recommendation by the working party, despite being color-coded yellow for a 
reason. The rational, as I remember it, was that the working party members 
agreed with the intent of the recommendations (the GNSO doing what it can to 
empower as much diversity as possible in WG participation), however, the 
standards set by the independent examiner to measure against seemed too vague 
and difficult to define and implement.

For example, in recommendation 35, the recommendation is to form a WG “whose 
membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age 
diversity of the Internet as a whole”. I’m not sure that the diversity of the 
Internet as a whole is something that will prove easy to work with. The 
language in recommendation 36 is a little more flexible adding “as far as 
reasonably practicle”.

Anyway, I’m not objecting to the changes made on these, but suggest that it may 
be helpful to add a note to our recommendation on these — that the metrics used 
to measure diversity should be specified with more consideration to what can 
actually be defined and measured. This could also likely be of assistance in 
measuring the success (or lack of) of implementation of these recommendations.

Just a thought.

Thanks.

Amr 

> On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Dear GNSO Review Working Party,
>  
> Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week’s call 
> made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working Party 
> to provide feedback on its Report “Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization 
> of Recommendations” by close of business on 24 February.   This is in 
> preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO Council for 
> consideration at the 9 March meeting.  We will schedule a tentative call from 
> 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback from the Working 
> Party, should it be needed.
>  
> The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the 
> wiki): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet 
> sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party’s evaluation of several 
> criteria:
>  
> ·         Ease or difficulty of implementation
> ·         Cost of implementation
> ·         Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO
> ·         Whether it impacts existing work or other work
>  
> The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts.  Part 
> One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the 
> independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), 
> agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or determined that work was 
> already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations).  Part Two prioritized the 
> recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have 
> on the GNSO.
>  
> The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority 
> recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, 
> and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom.
>  
> Below is an updated timeline:
>  
> <image003.png>
> I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Charla
>  
> Charla K. Shambley
> Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager 
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA  90094
> mobile: 310-745-1943
>  
> <GNSO Review Rec Prioritization - 3Feb2016.xlsx>